J. Tam

The plaintiff, Breaking Ground Drilling and Blasting Inc., sued Hanslip Demolition for unpaid invoices.

Hanslip Demolition counterclaimed for $6 million due to alleged deficient work and issued a Third Party Claim against Lloyd's of London Limited (Lloyds) and Intact Insurance Company, seeking indemnification as an additional insured under Breaking Ground's policy.

Lloyds brought a motion to strike the Third Party Claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court dismissed the Third Party Claim against Lloyds, finding that Hanslip Demolition's claims (for defence costs and indemnity for the main action, and for its counterclaim losses) were not covered by the commercial general liability policy, which only covered bodily injury, personal injury, property damage, or advertising liability caused by an occurrence.

The court also found that Hanslip Demolition could not trigger the policy for property damage to the quarry (not its property) and that the conditions for a direct action against the insurer under s. 132 of the Insurance Act were not met as no judgment had been obtained against Breaking Ground.

This decision addresses two consolidated applications seeking a declaration that Great American Insurance Company (GAIC) has a duty to defend the City of Thunder Bay in multiple actions concerning "pinhole leaks" in water pipes.

GAIC denied coverage, relying on a lead exclusion clause.

The court found the lead exclusion ambiguous and, applying the "mere possibility" test, determined that GAIC failed to prove the exclusion clearly and unambiguously applied to the claims, which primarily alleged negligence related to the introduction of sodium hydroxide, not lead.

The court declared GAIC obliged to defend the City.

The applicant obtained a default judgment against a contractor for defective sewer installation and sought to enforce the judgment directly against the contractor's insurer under s. 132 of the Insurance Act.

The insurer denied coverage because the contractor failed to report the claim for nine years, breaching the policy's prompt notice condition.

The court found that the insured breached the notice condition and declined to grant relief from forfeiture, concluding that the delay was unreasonable, substantial, and prejudiced the insurer's ability to investigate and pursue third-party claims.

The application was dismissed.

Anray Limited, a small excavation and concrete company, was charged with three counts under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from an incident on August 10, 2010, at a residential renovation project in Toronto.

The charges involved: (1) failure to ensure an excavator was moved safely; (2) failure to ensure the excavator operator was assisted by a signaller; and (3) failure to ensure the operator wore a seat belt.

The defendant was found guilty on Counts 1 and 3, with Count 3 stayed as a contributing element of Count 1.

The defendant was acquitted on Count 2.

The court rejected the defendant's due diligence defence, finding that the company's informal, oral safety practices were insufficient and that the defendant failed to establish reasonable precautions in the circumstances.